Subsequent Opioid Use Research Articles

Awareness and Attitudes Toward Intranasal Naloxone Rescue for Opioid Overdose Prevention

Opioid overdose prevention is a pressing public health concern and intranasal naloxone rescue kits are a useful tool in preventing fatal overdose. We evaluated the attitudes, knowledge, and experiences of patients and providers related to overdose and naloxone rescue. Over a six month period, patients and providers within a large community hospital in Staten Island were recruited to complete tailored questionnaires for their respective groupings. 100 patients and 101 providers completed questionnaires between August, 2014 and January, 2015. Patient participants were primarily Caucasian males with a mean age of 37.7 years, of which 65% accurately identified naloxone for opioid overdose, but only 21% knew more specific clinical features. 68% of patients had previously witnessed a drug overdose. Notably, 58% of patients anticipated their behavior would change if provided access to an intranasal naloxone rescue kit, of which 83% predicted an increase in opioid use. Prior overdose was significantly correlated with anticipating no change in subsequent opioid use pattern (p=0.02). 99% of patients reported that their rapport with their health-care provider would be enhanced if offered an intranasal naloxone rescue kit. As for providers, 24% had completed naloxone rescue kit training, and 96% were able to properly identify its clinical application. 50% of providers felt naloxone access would decrease the likelihood of an overdose occurring, and 58% felt it would not contribute to high-risk behavior. Among providers, completion of naloxone training was correlated with increased awareness of where to access kits for patients (p<0.001). This study suggests that patients and providers have distinct beliefs and attitudes toward overdose prevention. Patient–Provider discussion of overdose prevention enhances patients' rapport with providers. However, access to an intranasal naloxone rescue kit may make some patients more vulnerable to high-risk behavior. Future research efforts examining provider and patient beliefs and practices are needed to help develop and implement effective hospital-based opioid overdose prevention strategies.

Longitudinal association between pain severity and subsequent opioid use in prescription opioid dependent patients with chronic pain

BackgroundPatients with prescription opioid use disorder commonly report relief of chronic pain as the chief reason for first opioid use; indeed, the prevalence of chronic pain is high in this population. Understanding the association between pain severity and subsequent opioid use is crucial for understanding how to manage these conditions simultaneously and has not been examined in this population. The aim of this analysis was to examine the proximal effect of pain severity on opioid use during 12 weeks of buprenorphine-naloxone therapy for patients with chronic pain and prescription opioid use disorder. MethodsThis study is a secondary analysis of a national, randomized, controlled trial of buprenorphine-naloxone plus counseling for prescription opioid dependent patients. The association between past-week pain severity and opioid use in the subsequent week was examined in 148 patients presenting with chronic pain at baseline. ResultsResults from a multivariable logistic regression model showed that greater pain severity in a given week was significantly associated with increased odds of opioid use in the following week over the 12-week treatment, even after adjusting for covariates associated with opioid use (aOR=1.15, p<0.001). ConclusionsDespite previous reports of no association between baseline pain and subsequent opioid use, our findings suggest that patients who experience flare-ups of pain during treatment are prone to relapse to opioid use. Future studies may identify those who are at risk to use opioids by carefully monitoring patterns of their pain intensity over time.

Craving predicts opioid use in opioid-dependent patients initiating buprenorphine treatment: A longitudinal study

Background: Few studies have assessed associations between craving and subsequent opioid use. We prospectively evaluated the relative utility of two craving questionnaires to predict opioid use among opioid-dependent patients in outpatient treatment. Method: Opioid-dependent patients (n = 147) initiating buprenorphine treatment were assessed every two weeks for 3 months. Craving was measured using the: (1) Desires for Drug Questionnaire (DDQ) and (2) Penn Alcohol-Craving Scale adapted for opioid craving (PCS). Multi-level logistic regression models estimated the effects of craving on the likelihood of opioid use. Craving assessed at time t was entered as a time-varying predictor of opioid use at time t + 1. Results: Craving scores plateaued at approximately 2 weeks after initiation of buprenorphine. In adjusted regression models, a 1-point increase in PCS scores (on a 7-point scale) was associated with a significant increase in the odds of opioid use at the subsequent assessment (OR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.08; 1.49, p < 0.01). The odds of opioid use at the subsequent follow-up assessment increased significantly as DDQ desire and intention scores increased (OR = 1.25, 95%CI 1.03; 1.51, p < 0.05), but was not significantly associated with DDQ negative reinforcement (OR = 1.01, 95%CI 0.88; 1.17, p > 0.05) or DDQ control (OR = 0.97, 95%CI 0.85; 1.11, p > 0.05) scores. Conclusion: Self-reported craving for opioids was modestly associated with subsequent relapse to opioid use among a cohort of patients treated with buprenorphine. Assessment of craving may provide clinical utility in predicting relapse among treated opioid-dependent patients.

Utilization of duloxetine and celecoxib in osteoarthritis patients

Objectives:To describe utilization patterns of duloxetine and celecoxib and subsequent opioid use among patients with osteoarthritis.Research design and methods:Pharmacy and medical claims from SDI Health were analyzed for adult osteoarthritis patients (ICD-9-CM: 715.xx) who initiated duloxetine or celecoxib between 11/30/2010 and 4/30/2011. Initiation was defined as no pill coverage in the prior 90 days. Included patients had continuous enrollment for 6 months before and after the initiation and did not use opioid for 90 days before initiation. Propensity score matching was used to select patients with similar demographic and clinical characteristics for duloxetine and celecoxib cohorts. Compliance to index medication was assessed via medication possession ratio (MPR), proportion of days covered (PDC), and proportion discontinued (no access for 60 days). Initiating dose and opioid use after the index date was assessed. A Cox proportional hazard model was estimated to compare time to first opioid use.Results:A total of 1360 patients initiated duloxetine and 1408 patients initiated celecoxib. After matching, 784 patients were selected for the duloxetine (mean age: 66, female: 78%) and celecoxib (mean age: 66; female: 76%) cohorts, respectively. Of the duloxetine cohort 92.5% started on ≤60 mg/day, the recommended dose, and 72.8% of the celecoxib cohort started on ≤200 mg/day. The duloxetine cohort had higher MPR and PDC and a lower proportion of discontinuation than the celecoxib cohort (MPR: 0.81 vs. 0.70; PDC: 0.51 vs. 0.35; discontinuation: 57% vs. 78%; all p < 0.001). A lower proportion of the duloxetine cohort used opioids after the index date (48.6% vs. 68.5%, p < 0.001), and they started on opioids later than the celecoxib cohort (25th percentile: 69.5 vs. 32 days; median: >183 days vs. 117 days, p < 0.001). After controlling for baseline characteristics, the duloxetine cohort initiated opioids later than the celecoxib cohort (hazard ratio: 0.66, 95% confidence interval: 0.58–0.76).Conclusion:Osteoarthritis patients initiating duloxetine had better compliance and a lower likelihood of opioid utilization than those initiating celecoxib. Study limitations included lack of information on reasons for medication initiation and discontinuation, severity of disease symptoms, and use of over-the-counter medications.

The impact of cocaine use on outcomes in HIV-infected patients receiving buprenorphine/naloxone.

Cocaine use is common in opioid-dependent HIV-infected patients, but its impact on treatment outcomes in these patients receiving buprenorphine/naloxone is not known. We conducted a prospective study in 299 patients receiving buprenorphine/naloxone who provided baseline cocaine data and a subset of 266 patients who remained in treatment for greater than or equal to one quarter. Assessments were conducted at baseline and quarterly for 1 year. We evaluated the association between baseline and in-treatment cocaine use on buprenorphine/naloxone retention, illicit opioid use, antiretroviral adherence, CD4 counts, HIV RNA, and risk behaviors. Sixty-six percent (197 of 299) of patients reported baseline cocaine use and 65% (173 of 266) of patients with follow-up data reported in-treatment cocaine use. Baseline and in-treatment cocaine use did not impact buprenorphine/naloxone retention, antiretroviral adherence, CD4 lymphocytes, or HIV risk behaviors. However, baseline cocaine use was associated with a 14.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.0-24.2) times greater likelihood of subsequent cocaine use (95% CI, 9.0-24.2), a 1.4 (95% CI, 1.02-2.00) times greater likelihood of subsequent opioid use, and higher log10 HIV RNA (P < 0.016) over time. In-treatment cocaine use was associated with a 1.4 (95% CI, 1.01-2.00) times greater likelihood of concurrent opioid use. Given cocaine use negatively impacts opioid and HIV treatment outcomes, interventions to address cocaine use in HIV-infected patients receiving buprenorphine/naloxone treatment are warranted.

Opioid Utilization and Health-Care Costs among Patients with Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain Treated with Duloxetine vs. Other Therapies

This retrospective cohort study assessed subsequent opioid utilization and health-care costs among patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) who initiated duloxetine vs. other standard of care (SOC) treatments. Medical and pharmacy claims were analyzed for commercially-insured individuals aged 18-64. Two study cohorts were constructed from DPNP patients who initiated duloxetine or SOC medications (tricyclic antidepressants, venlafaxine, gabapentin, pregabalin) between March 1, 2005 and December 31, 2005. Initiation was defined as a prior 90-day period without access of the medication. The dispense date of the first initiation was denoted as the index date. Patients with opioids dispensed in the prior 90 days were excluded. Opioid utilization including total days, number of prescriptions filled, and morphine equivalent dosage was assessed for overall, long-acting, and short-acting opioids. Health-care costs and opioid use in the 12-month post-index period were examined via multivariate regression analyses. Four hundred and ninety-nine DPNP patients (272 duloxetine, 227 SOC) were identified. SOC patients had higher prevalence of comorbidities and pre-index health-care costs than duloxetine patients. Controlling for cross-cohort differences, duloxetine patients were significantly less likely to use any opioids than SOC patients. Also, duloxetine patients had 20 fewer adjusted opioid supply days (largely due to the use of short-acting opioids, P < 0.05) and significantly lower adjusted total costs ($8,088, P < 0.05) and diabetes-related costs ($3,092, P < 0.05) in the 12-month post-index period, with most of the cost differences from lower outpatient costs. DPNP patients who initiated duloxetine therapy were less likely to have subsequent opioid use and had lower health-care costs than SOC patients.

Opioid use and healthcare costs among patients with DPNP initiating duloxetine versus other treatments

Objective:To compare opioid utilization and healthcare costs over a 1-year period following the initiation with duloxetine versus other standard of care (SOC) treatments among patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).Methods:This retrospective cohort study assessed commercially-insured DPNP patients between 18 and 64 years old who initiated duloxetine or other SOC treatments (tricyclic antidepressants, venlafaxine, gabapentin, pregabalin) between 3/1/2005 and 12/31/2005. Initiation was defined as a 90-day period without available study medication. The first dispense date of the study medication was denoted as the index date. Selected patients had no opioid pill coverage during the 90 days prior to initiation. Duloxetine and SOC patients were matched via propensity scoring (1:1 ratio), controlling for demographics, comorbidities, prior healthcare utilization and costs, and prior medication history. Opioid utilization and healthcare costs over the 12-month post-index period were compared between study cohorts.Results:The matched sample included 117 patients in each of the duloxetine and SOC cohorts. Compared with SOC-treated patients, duloxetine-treated patients were less likely to use any opioids (52.1 vs. 84.6%, p < 0.05) over the 12-month post-index period. Duloxetine-treated patients, on average, had two fewer opioid prescriptions dispensed, 27 fewer days on opioids, 121 days greater delay in subsequent opioid use, and 1815 mg lower morphine equivalent dosage than SOC-treated patients (all p < 0.05). Also, duloxetine-treated patients had significantly lower total ($18 623 vs. 30 602, p < 0.05) and outpatient costs ($7371 vs. 15 343, p < 0.05).Due to the use of a retrospective administrative claims database, limitations of this study include the potential for selection bias between study cohorts, and inability to measure unobservable confounding and disease severity and/or duration.Conclusions:Among commercially-insured DPNP patients, duloxetine-treated patients had delayed and reduced opioid use and lower healthcare costs than SOC-treated patients.

The Relationship Between Repeated Epidural Steroid Injections and Subsequent Opioid Use and Lumbar Surgery

The Relationship Between Repeated Epidural Steroid Injections and Subsequent Opioid Use and Lumbar Surgery

The Relationship Between Repeated Epidural Steroid Injections and Subsequent Opioid Use and Lumbar Surgery

Friedly J, Nishio I, Bishop MJ, Maynard C. The relationship between repeated epidural steroid injections and subsequent opioid use and lumbar surgery. Objectives To evaluate whether the use of epidural steroid injections (ESIs) is associated with decreased subsequent opioid use in patients in the Department of Veteran's Affairs (VA) and to determine whether treatment with multiple injections are associated with decreased opioid use and lumbar surgery after ESIs. Design VA patients undergoing ESIs during the study period for specific low back pain (LBP) diagnoses were identified, and lumbar surgery and opioid use were examined for 6 months before and after ESI. Setting National VA administrative data. Participants U.S. veterans (retrospective data analysis). Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures Opioid use and lumbar surgery after ESIs. Results During the 2-year study period, 13,741 different VA patients underwent an ESI for LBP. The majority of patients were using opioids before their ESIs (64%), as were the majority after their ESIs (67%). Of patients not on opioids before the ESIs, 38% were prescribed opioids afterward, whereas only 16% of people on opioids before the ESIs stopped using opioids afterward. Patients who received more than 3 injections were more likely than patients receiving fewer injections to start taking opioids after ESIs (19% vs 13%, P<.001) and to undergo lumbar surgery after ESIs (8.7% vs 6.3%, P=.003). Conclusions Opioid use did not decrease in the 6 months after ESIs. In this population, patients who received multiple injections were more likely to start taking opioids and to undergo lumbar surgery within the 6 months after treatment with ESIs. These findings are concerning because our data suggest that ESIs are not reducing opioid use in this VA population.

Toxicology Screening in Orthopedic Trauma Patients Predicting Duration of Prescription Opioid Use

Following hospitalization for orthopedic trauma, some patients continue to use opioids following fracture healing. This retrospective cohort study of 50 patients with high-energy fractures was conducted to determine if toxicology screening tests upon admission can predict subsequent opioid use. Data were collected from clinical records and a statewide electronic database of prescription records. Six months following hospital discharge, those with positive toxicology used more opioids (730 mg vs. 364 mg; P=.04) expressed as morphine equivalents than those with negative toxicology and were more likely to continue using opiates at the end of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th month after discharge. Patients hospitalized for high-energy fractures with positive admission toxicology are at risk for prolonged opiate use during the initial six months following discharge.